2010 (9) TMI 580 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Cenvat credit - Non speaking order - invoices issued by consignment of TISCO which went through a registered dealer did not satisfy the conditions for taking credit and penalties imposed on Sh. Mohinder Gupta, Director (the appellant in 2592/06) and six others - The show cause notices were issued specific to the recipient-manufacturer who availed the credit together with connected parties like TISCO, Consignment Agent, Registered dealer (wherever applicable) and the individual persons connected to the above parties - there are cases where the manufacturer have admitted only receipt of invoices without receipt of goods and thus have admitted duty liability and paid the duty and some of them have not even filed appeals - It is hoped that the Commissioner will take necessary action and submit the report in respect of other pending matters to the Registry and that the concerned DR will pursue for getting the report from the concerned Commissionerate - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Issues Involved:
1. Manner of disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Manner of listing and clubbing of the cases by the Registry
3. Lack of assistance at the time of hearing appeals on earlier occasions
4. Actions required from the Commissioner

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Manner of disposal by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The judgment highlights significant flaws in how the Commissioner (Appeals) handled the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider all appeals arising from a particular order-in-original together. Instead, he clubbed appeals from different orders-in-original, which is unjustified. The original authority's orders pertained to manufacturer-specific show cause notices with connected parties, where the nature of violations and evidence relied upon were not identical. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have correlated relevant facts individually, especially when some manufacturers admitted to receiving only invoices without goods and paid the duty without appealing. The judgment criticizes the Commissioner (Appeals) for a "mass disposal" of appeals, akin to a doctor prescribing the same medicine to all patients without individual diagnosis, indicating a total non-application of mind. Consequently, the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside and remanded for proper appreciation of facts and application of law based on specific findings in each case.

Manner of listing and clubbing of the cases by the Registry:
The Registry's handling of the appeals further contributed to the confusion. Appeals arising from the same common order-in-appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) were listed in different years (2006, 2008, and 2009) instead of being grouped together. The judgment emphasizes the need for the Registry to take precautions in listing all appeals arising from a common order-in-appeal together, which is feasible with the existing software program. The current listing of 44 appeals was also criticized for not individually specifying each appeal's number, appellant, respondent, and authorized representative. This practice led to improper correlation of appeal numbers with party names in earlier final orders.

Lack of assistance at the time of hearing appeals on earlier occasions:
The judgment notes a lack of proper assistance from both sides during earlier hearings. Advocates and Department Representatives (DRs) failed to ensure that truly connected appeals were listed together for disposal. This lack of diligence and effort contributed to the improper handling and listing of appeals.

Actions required from the Commissioner:
The judgment details the steps taken to address the confusion, including issuing a Miscellaneous Order directing the Commissioner to provide details of pending appeals with reference to each order-in-original. The report was only partially received, specifically for the Mandi Gobindgarh division. The judgment emphasizes the need for the Commissioner to submit a comprehensive report for other pending matters and for the concerned DR to pursue this information.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority, as they relate to the appeals before the Tribunal, are set aside. The matters are remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration, taking into account the observations made and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ranjeev Alloys Limited. The original authority is directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties before deciding the matter afresh.

← Previous Next →